Louisiana court's ruling that Catholic priest testify about confession criticized by Baton Rouge Diocese

[Lapey]

Money can be used for several things. Counseling, medicine, and more importantly, moving so they can reestablish their life in a new place to promote healing.

I used to have similar views as you regarding reporting, and also regarding suing. I think the lawyers benefit more than anybody else sometimes.

If I had been able to settle mine at the time, it would have been to move. Mine was not just as a child, like you, but continued which is all too common.

I look at SNAP as a necessary penance because some people did not do what they were supposed to do. They remind me of that. I have no ties with them other than it is sad part of history and I aim to help anyone. I know the victims will not receive the healing they need from them alone, nor from money, but it can and does help them. Healing only comes through forgiveness. Thank goodness we have groups that focus just on that.

As to priest falsely accused, it is a shame but I am sure it does happen.
Not given all the details, we can never know about some, till the next life. Abusers are known liars anyway.

Yes, I did make a suggestion. I though it was good at the time to make a climate more inviting. As we have rules against speaking of clergy, and loosely anyone, I thought it might make it more inviting to victims if they were listed specifically. Suggestions are just that, though.

It is statements like this one that lower your credibility and cause people to suspect an agenda here. You make blanket and “pigeon-holing” statements about people with no regard for the individuals. It could say the same about accusers. There are many more people who have made accusations that have been proven to be false and only an attempt to gain monetary benefits. Are all accusers liars? Of course not. Neither are all of the accused molesters actually molesters. The priest I mentioned is one who is and was not a molester, but this proven fact does nothing to allow him to return to the ministry as a priest. He is not a liar and to imply that, if that is what you are doing here, is offensive.

 

[Hopey]

It is statements like this one that lower your credibility and cause people to suspect an agenda here. You make blanket and “pigeon-holing” statements about people with no regard for the individuals. It could say the same about accusers. There are many more people who have made accusations that have been proven to be false and only an attempt to gain monetary benefits. Are all accusers liars? Of course not. Neither are all of the accused molesters actually molesters. The priest I mentioned is one who is and was not a molester, but this proven fact does nothing to allow him to return to the ministry as a priest. He is not a liar and to imply that, if that is what you are doing here, is offensive.

Please read what I wrote again. I said abusers not alleged abusers.
I can say the same about addicts, known liars.
It comes with the make up of their character.
Finding out the truth is very hard and why I also said some things we will not know for certain till the next life. Prayers for that priest.

 

[zab]

Please read what I wrote again. I said abusers not alleged abusers.
I can say the same about addicts, known liars.
It comes with the make up of their character.
Finding out the truth is very hard and why I also said some things we will not know for certain till the next life. Prayers for that priest.

I just don’t believe you, Hopey. You seem very selective of the kind of victims that you want to help. On more than one occasion you have stated that you do not care whether the accusations against Fr. Bayhi are fair or not. You stated, "*It’s part of their duty when they step in the confessional. That is why I don’t look at it as fair or not. " *
Your attitude all along towards Fr. Bayhi has been like guilty until proven innocent. So your statement above comes across with the same “who cares?” attitude “…some things we will not know for certain till the next life.” Well, I care.

 

[Hopey]

I just don’t believe you, Hopey. You seem very selective of the kind of victims that you want to help. On more than one occasion you have stated that you do not care whether the accusations against Fr. Bayhi are fair or not. You stated, "*It’s part of their duty when they step in the confessional. That is why I don’t look at it as fair or not. " *
Your attitude all along towards Fr. Bayhi has been like guilty until proven innocent. So your statement above comes across with the same “who cares?” attitude “…some things we will not know for certain till the next life.” Well, I care.

You are misquoting what I said. Your question to me was whether I thought it was fair that he couldn’t defend himself.
To that I replied I don’t consider it fair or not, but that it comes with the territory of confession and being a priest. I also provided you examples of how something charged against the priest, in the confessional, he could not defend himself in the Church.
I do care.
If you don’t like the way priests can not defend themselves regarding the seal of the confession, it is not me you need to take it up with.

Since those, the seal, are based on divine and natural law, maybe God can help you understand when things are not as fair as we would like.

In no shape or form can you derive I don’t care.

 

[zab]

You are misquoting what I said. Your question to me was whether I thought it was fair that he couldn’t defend himself.
To that I replied I don’t consider it fair or not, but that it comes with the territory of confession and being a priest. I also provided you examples of how something charged against the priest, in the confessional, he could not defend himself in the Church.
I do care.
If you don’t like the way priests can not defend themselves regarding the seal of the confession, it is not me you need to take it up with.

Since those, the seal, are based on divine and natural law, maybe God can help you understand when things are not as fair as we would like.

In no shape or form can you derive I don’t care.

I did not misquote you. It was a copy and paste. But thanks for confirming the statement. It confirms that have no compassion for the priest who is bound by the seal of confession when it comes to allowing the girl to testify to something that the priest cannot confirm or deny. But I’m not going to keep going round and round on this.

 

[Hopey]

I did not misquote you. It was a copy and paste. But thanks for confirming the statement. It confirms that have no compassion for the priest who is bound by the seal of confession when it comes to allowing the girl to testify to something that the priest cannot confirm or deny. But I’m not going to keep going round and round on this.

You need to take that up with God, not me. I did not make those rules.
If you drew that conclusion, then you would still be in error.
And not putting the question you asked first, is partly misquoting.
I am glad you will leave it alone as people can disagree, or be neutral on things.
Peace.

 

[estesbob]

From Fr. Grondin in case anyone wanted to know, clarification:

Re: When a confessor and spiritual director are the same, is a penitent allowed to bring up topics from confession with him?
The priest can never talk about what was said during confession. If the penitent raises the issue in spiritual direction then the priest must act as if it is the first time he is hearing the information. It can be talked about only if the penitent restates everything about the topic during spiritual direction.

The priest can never talk about what took place during the confession, he can only discuss things that are talked about outside of the sacrament. So if I confessed robbing a bank, the priest cannot broach that topic in spiritual direction. But if I say in spiritual direction that I robbed a bank, the priest can not use information gained in the confessional during the conversation. He has to act as if I am telling him for the first time. Anything said in spiritual direction can be further discussed.

Because this can get messy and confusing as to when and where certain things were brought up in the past, it is not recommended that someone’s confessor and spiritual director be the same priest.

---

Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin

Thank you Fr. Grondin.

\

This Priests Bishop has stated the matter is under the seal of confession. He is a member of the Magisterium-this apologist is not.

 

[Hopey]

\

This Priests Bishop has stated the matter is under the seal of confession. He is a member of the Magisterium-this apologist is not.

If you go back, the question was in general, topic cannot be brought up at all, that is why I asked the apologist. If the Bishop said it was a confession, then it was. The court, where I left off, had to determine if something was said outside the confession(al).

 

[Lapey]

If you go back, the question was in general, topic cannot be brought up at all, that is why I asked the apologist. If the Bishop said it was a confession, then it was. The court, where I left off, had to determine if something was said outside the confession(al).

This is the simple fact that your stubbornness will not accept. The priest nor the bishop are at liberty to say if it were discussed in the confessional or not; neither can they verify that there was a confession or not. It is done, the priest will not and cannot speak of it. Other than justice’s sake what is there? There can be no justice, as the alleged perp is dead. What else is there besides money; nothing.

The staff apologist’s opinion means nothing if not applied directly to the facts of this case, which is impossible. So your adventure with the apologist was and is meaningless. He said nothing more than you and I have discussed many posts ago. I guess it made you feel better, but it has no bearing on this case.

PS. I see you still have your “posting ninja” suit on. Do the phrases “obsession” or “last word” mean anything to you?

 

[Hopey]

This is the simple fact that your stubbornness will not accept. The priest nor the bishop are at liberty to say if it were discussed in the confessional or not; neither can they verify that there was a confession or not. It is done, the priest will not and cannot speak of it. Other than justice’s sake what is there? There can be no justice, as the alleged perp is dead. What else is there besides money; nothing.

The staff apologist’s opinion means nothing if not applied directly to the facts of this case, which is impossible. So your adventure with the apologist was and is meaningless. He said nothing more than you and I have discussed many posts ago. I guess it made you feel better, but it has no bearing on this case.

PS. I see you still have your “posting ninja” suit on. Do the phrases “obsession” or “last word” mean anything to you?

Posting under a thread that I started that got merged with another another is ninja style. Okaaay.
You are in error that a Bishop or other expert can’t look at something, based on the girl’s testimony and say whether it was a valid confession or not.

I can think of one well known expert who isn’t a Bishop but could do the same. I put examples in the other tread that was closed if you want to go and look.

As long as you do not say things that are errors, I probably will not respond. Since this is my thread, I can correct it tho.

That, regarding looking at confessions, I do know about.

 

[Rico_S]

PS. I see you still have your “posting ninja” suit on. Do the phrases “obsession” or “last word” mean anything to you?

Not terribly charitable, Deacon. You can do better.

 

[Lapey]

Not terribly charitable, Deacon. You can do better.

As long as terribly uncharitable, I guess I’ll chalk it up to aggravation of making no headway whatsoever…

 

[Hopey]

As long as terribly uncharitable, I guess I’ll chalk it up to aggravation of making no headway whatsoever…

What exactly was your goal, this headway you are talking about?
Mine was that others can have a differing opinion regarding whether this meets a religious liberty issue yet or not. I posted a link to an article that quoted experts saying it wasn’t one yet.

What was your goal?

 

[Lapey]

Posting under a thread that I started that got merged with another another is ninja style. Okaaay.
You are in error that a Bishop or other expert can’t look at something, based on the girl’s testimony and say whether it was a valid confession or not.
I can think of one well known expert who isn’t a Bishop but could do the same. I put examples in the other tread that was closed if you want to go and look.

As long as you do not say things that are errors, I probably will not respond. Since this is my thread, I can correct it tho.

That, regarding looking at confessions, I do know about.

The bishop of the diocese in question and the priest in question CANNOT RESPOND!!!

It’s not about recognizing anything! The court is trying to figure this out, the clerics involved are powerless to inform them whether there was or was not a confession; nor can they say if the topics were discussed outside of the confessional. That would imply whether there was a confession or not.

 

[Lapey]

What exactly was your goal, this headway you are talking about?
Mine was that others can have a differing opinion regarding whether this meets a religious liberty issue yet or not. I posted a link to an article that quoted experts saying it wasn’t one yet.

What was your goal?

To illustrate to you that the clerics cannot join in on the conversation, even if they are under oath.

This is and the courts will eventually show this to be a religious liberty issue. These men and the diocese are defenseless. The lawyers know this and they will in turn probably win a judgment and Fr. Bayhi will be charged for his silence until the USSC rules in his favor; hopefully.

 

[Hopey]

The bishop of the diocese in question and the priest in question CANNOT RESPOND!!!

It’s not about recognizing anything! The court is trying to figure this out, the clerics involved are powerless to inform them whether there was or was not a confession; nor can they say if the topics were discussed outside of the confessional. That would imply whether there was a confession or not.

Then you need to join the band wagon of opposing Bishops who have declared whether something was a sacramental confession or not, and experts also, and let them know they are not doing their job. They can and they do. That is one area you do hope that Bishop does speak up on because if you leave it to the court to decide when a confession was valid or not…

 

[Hopey]

To illustrate to you that the clerics cannot join in on the conversation, even if they are under oath.

This is and the courts will eventually show this to be a religious liberty issue. These men and the diocese are defenseless. The lawyers know this and they will in turn probably win a judgment and Fr. Bayhi will be charged for his silence until the USSC rules in his favor; hopefully.

Thank you for stating your goal. I believe, or hope, the priest can not say anything (meaning he didn’t learn outside the confession).
We will have to disagree, on our own learned knowledge, who is able to look at these things, Bishops and experts, and declare something a confession or not. Not totally defenseless.

 

[Lapey]

Then you need to join the band wagon of opposing Bishops who have declared whether something was a sacramental confession or not, and experts also, and let them know they are not doing their job. They can and they do. That is one area you do hope that Bishop does speak up on because if you leave it to the court to decide when a confession was valid or not…

Valid or not??? Who said anything about validity? Sometimes I just wonder…

Please post the “bandwagon of bishops” who have thrown their priests under the bus by mandating that they must divulge what takes place in the confessional; even the fact that there was or was not sacramental confession.

 

[Hopey]

The Bishop didn’t throw anyone under the bus. But, go to the one under sacraments and look for the link of the Bishop declaring the priest broke the seal. In order for him to judge that he broke the seal, there must first be a confession.

Yes, a confession can be valid or not, such as the way it starts and ends, absolution.

Go and look at how Dr. Peter took line by line what a minister, priest, wrote in an article and see how there was enough evidence that the Diocese, officials, needed to look in to it.

If they can’t look at these things, then there would be no determining these others.

 

[Lapey]

Thank you for stating your goal. I believe, or hope, the priest can not say anything (meaning he didn’t learn outside the confession).
We will have to disagree, on our own learned knowledge, who is able to look at these things, Bishops and experts, and declare something a confession or not. Not totally defenseless.

If the priest or bishop says there was a confession, the seal is broken. If discussions took place in and outside of the confessional, he can speak of neither; less the seal be broken. He is defenseless.